Amen! This was an excellent article! I would say that I also tend to desire to take an extreme position because of my conviction about being a "convicted Christian." But sometimes strict Christian dogmatism on second and third tier issues (such as music, movies, Calvinism v. Arminianism etc.) can lead to legalism and extreme narrow mindedness.
I have heard it said before that Christianity "can seem easier" when we take dogmatic positions on gray-to-a-certain-extent issues (of course, arguing that it is the "best" or "only right" way) but Christianity is not MEANT to be "easy" like that.
God did not give us a handbook on where to go to college, what movie to watch, or what music to listen to. God gave us the Bible, which we are supposed to discern and apply to every area of our lives. Part of the sanctification process is seeking wisdom and making decisions God's way...by searching the Scriptures for yourself.
This sanctification process does NOT involve arguing that God has spoken from the clouds and told you everything you need to believe, take a stand on, or do and that everybody else is in fact WRONG.
That is not God's way. God is not the maker of robots...and he surely can not expect humans He has created with a free will to have all the same convictions. Couldn't Christians having different convictions about conscience issues (such as movies and music) to a certain extent be part of God's plan for us and our individual growth from the beginning?
I really liked your thought in the article that extreme, dogmatic ideas on certain not-essential-to-Christianity issues are not only unreasonable, but also "fearfully faithless."
Note: I WOULD probably argue that all Calvinists (that actively CALL themselves Calvinists) DO believe that Christ only died for the elect...although not necessarily all people that consider themselves "reformed."
Actually one of the foundational pillars of Calvinism is the whole concept of limited atonement.
Now, taking the idea of limited atonement to the extreme - "Christ only died for the elect, so therefore I don't need to witness" - is an idea that most God-seeking-Bible-believing Calvinists actually don't hold (contrary to the "extremist stereotype" that some veins of evangelical Christianity like to label Calvinists with).
I just say this to clarify (because many in my church including my pastor consider themselves five-point Calvinists although I do not), but you are welcome to disagree :)
Thanks, Karis! I agree with you. Such great thoughts.
I actually lean very Calvinistic in my doctrine and am very familiar with 5 pt. Calvinism. I would qualify as someone who actively calls themselves a Calvinist. The doctrine of limited atonement is something I've spent a lot of time reading about and researching because, like you said, the idea that Christ only died for the elect is unbiblical.
The original doctrine of limited atonement written by John Calvin is actually very biblical. Rather than state that Christ died only for the elect, it states that that Christ died for ALL people but that He only INTERCEDES for the elect who accept Christ. In other words, Christ's sacrifice only atones for the sins of those who have accepted him although it has the power to atone for all sin. You can look it up, but there is no recording anywhere that I have found in any of my research of John Calvin ever saying that Christ only died for the elect.
More extreme Calvinists (extreme in the sense that they take John Calvin's ideas farther than he himself did) do take the doctrine of limited atonement to mean that Christ only died for the elect. But traditional Calvinists such as I believe no such thing. The idea that all real Calvinists believe that Christ only died for the elect is one of the most commonly misunderstood doctrines of 5 pt Calvinism and does not accurately represent John Calvin or Reformed theology.
I am obviously wrong and have obviously not studied it as much as you (actually, hardly at all).
So, next time, perhaps I will make sure I know what I'm talking about before I pick my battles haha XD.
That IS interesting, though, because like I said many of my church brothers and sisters hold to five-point Calvinism INCLUDING limited atonement as I originally heard it defined (Christ died only for the elect). Perhaps all of them do NOT believe in the doctrine as I thought they did but I'm pretty sure at least some of them do.
This is fine with me....I'm actually not sure if I think the idea that Christ died for the elect is strictly unbiblical...people can argue pretty well for it either way. I just think that it is unbiblical when driven to a practical extreme, which it generally isn't (as far as I know, a "hyper-calvinist" is rare or non-existent).
But your thoughts about what John Calvin ACTUALLY defined limited atonement as were very good and I've actually never had it explained it to me that way before!
What I've always believed "limited atonement" means is what has made me uncomfortable and forced me to hesitate to identify as a five-point-Calvinist (which, side note, must Christians always compartmentalize everybody and everything? I mean, I think Calvin can be helpful but at some point we can just all be Christians together right? XD) although I would say that I pretty much completely agree with the other four points!
So, the way you defined the "limited atonement" point as John Calvin defined it (NOT as it is commonly defined) was actually something I've never heard before and would make me a lot more likely study it more and even probably end up calling myself a "Calvinist" (if again, we must identify as something :)
So thank you, that was very interesting and I've never heard that before! I am therefore wrong and you are right: do you think that maybe you could refer me to a source or two that I could use to study up on that myself?
LOL the other day I tried to contradict someone about something and I ended up accidentally misrepresenting them---I can totally relate and I have done it more times than I like to recall. XD
That's really interesting! I mean, I knew that extreme Calvinists hold to that view of limited atonement but I've personally never met one!
I know, the doctrine of limited atonement has made me uncomfortable because the title makes it sound like exactly what a lot of people think it is, which is why I felt compelled to research it. If the idea that Christ did not die for all was a true tennant of Calvin's teaching I would have a strong disagreement with him there.
I agree that it's unfortunate that people have to label themselves and each other. Hence me writing this post. XD While it can be helpful it often isn't healthy for sure.
Actually, I'm reading a really interesting book on Calvinism right now by a theologian who calls himself a "moderate Calvinist". I don't agree with all of his takes; he starts his ideas with a lot of presuppositions about what necessitates the way God's love is shown to us that I don't think is entirely accurate, but he does offer a helpful look into what extreme Calvinists and Armenians believe as opposed to moderate Calvinists and moderate Armenians. The book is called "Chosen, But Free".
A more dogmatic Calvinist found a lot of issues in that guy's reasoning and responded to the book in his own book called "The Potter's Freedom". The Potter's Freedom went on to become far more successful than Chosen, But Free and the author of Chosen, But Free then went on to revise his own book because he found that many of the critiques of his friend were valid.
From what I've read I'll probably agree more with the author of The Potter's Freedom. Chosen, But Free is still a very interesting and insightful read and offers some helpful insights into different perspectives, though!
I also love Jonathan Edwards (if you can't tell from how often I talk about him). He was an extreme Calvinist, so he took Calvin's ideas farther than he did. However, Edwards was point blank a genius (he's considered one of the United States most brilliant thinkers in history) and has amazing insight on the human heart. I'm reading his book "The Religious Affections" right now and couldn't recommend it highly enough.
I would that you would write an article on how the "heath and wealth" prosperity gospel has distorted the faith of many. That's extreme greed cloaked in Scripture taken totally out of context.
Thank you, Joan! That's a great idea. I'll keep that in mind! It's a post that would fit right into my genre and health and wealth lies are something I've been thinking about lately.
I hate that particular lie most of all. I've hated Kenneth Copeland, Paula Price, Benny Hinn, Joyce Myer, etc. but distanced myself from the emotion by remembering a line attributed to Martin Luther -- "The devil is God's devil" -- which means God will take care of those of that ilk. And even in condemning the most "greasy" kind of "Christian", I am reminded of my own sins. Unfair, don't you think? (that last was meant to be a joke).
Amen! That's something I have to remind myself of as well. It's easy to hate liars and those who have wronged us, but I agree that we have been called by God to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. It's hard to remember sometimes.
Um. Wow. What a very excellent post :D You make very good points, and I appreciate that you quote others so often (something I aspire to). In what ways specifically have you seen your own (or others if you can share) tendency to swing towards a certain extreme and how has Christ helped guide you on the right path with that? I am curious what it looks like tangibly.
Honestly, where I see this materializing most in my life is an overemphasis when it comes to the rules instead of walking in faith. Like the verse that talks about how we are "a clanging symbol if we have not love" I often have focused far too much on the rules and making sure I'm doing all the "good Christian things" rather than walking in love like my Savior and enjoying, loving, and challenging the people around me the way Christ would have me to. An extreme emphasis on the rules leads to fearful legalism instead of humble faith, and it's something I want to avoid at all costs.
Amen! This was an excellent article! I would say that I also tend to desire to take an extreme position because of my conviction about being a "convicted Christian." But sometimes strict Christian dogmatism on second and third tier issues (such as music, movies, Calvinism v. Arminianism etc.) can lead to legalism and extreme narrow mindedness.
I have heard it said before that Christianity "can seem easier" when we take dogmatic positions on gray-to-a-certain-extent issues (of course, arguing that it is the "best" or "only right" way) but Christianity is not MEANT to be "easy" like that.
God did not give us a handbook on where to go to college, what movie to watch, or what music to listen to. God gave us the Bible, which we are supposed to discern and apply to every area of our lives. Part of the sanctification process is seeking wisdom and making decisions God's way...by searching the Scriptures for yourself.
This sanctification process does NOT involve arguing that God has spoken from the clouds and told you everything you need to believe, take a stand on, or do and that everybody else is in fact WRONG.
That is not God's way. God is not the maker of robots...and he surely can not expect humans He has created with a free will to have all the same convictions. Couldn't Christians having different convictions about conscience issues (such as movies and music) to a certain extent be part of God's plan for us and our individual growth from the beginning?
I really liked your thought in the article that extreme, dogmatic ideas on certain not-essential-to-Christianity issues are not only unreasonable, but also "fearfully faithless."
Note: I WOULD probably argue that all Calvinists (that actively CALL themselves Calvinists) DO believe that Christ only died for the elect...although not necessarily all people that consider themselves "reformed."
Actually one of the foundational pillars of Calvinism is the whole concept of limited atonement.
Now, taking the idea of limited atonement to the extreme - "Christ only died for the elect, so therefore I don't need to witness" - is an idea that most God-seeking-Bible-believing Calvinists actually don't hold (contrary to the "extremist stereotype" that some veins of evangelical Christianity like to label Calvinists with).
I just say this to clarify (because many in my church including my pastor consider themselves five-point Calvinists although I do not), but you are welcome to disagree :)
Thanks, Karis! I agree with you. Such great thoughts.
I actually lean very Calvinistic in my doctrine and am very familiar with 5 pt. Calvinism. I would qualify as someone who actively calls themselves a Calvinist. The doctrine of limited atonement is something I've spent a lot of time reading about and researching because, like you said, the idea that Christ only died for the elect is unbiblical.
The original doctrine of limited atonement written by John Calvin is actually very biblical. Rather than state that Christ died only for the elect, it states that that Christ died for ALL people but that He only INTERCEDES for the elect who accept Christ. In other words, Christ's sacrifice only atones for the sins of those who have accepted him although it has the power to atone for all sin. You can look it up, but there is no recording anywhere that I have found in any of my research of John Calvin ever saying that Christ only died for the elect.
More extreme Calvinists (extreme in the sense that they take John Calvin's ideas farther than he himself did) do take the doctrine of limited atonement to mean that Christ only died for the elect. But traditional Calvinists such as I believe no such thing. The idea that all real Calvinists believe that Christ only died for the elect is one of the most commonly misunderstood doctrines of 5 pt Calvinism and does not accurately represent John Calvin or Reformed theology.
You know what, Emma?
I revoke my previous statement :)
I am obviously wrong and have obviously not studied it as much as you (actually, hardly at all).
So, next time, perhaps I will make sure I know what I'm talking about before I pick my battles haha XD.
That IS interesting, though, because like I said many of my church brothers and sisters hold to five-point Calvinism INCLUDING limited atonement as I originally heard it defined (Christ died only for the elect). Perhaps all of them do NOT believe in the doctrine as I thought they did but I'm pretty sure at least some of them do.
This is fine with me....I'm actually not sure if I think the idea that Christ died for the elect is strictly unbiblical...people can argue pretty well for it either way. I just think that it is unbiblical when driven to a practical extreme, which it generally isn't (as far as I know, a "hyper-calvinist" is rare or non-existent).
But your thoughts about what John Calvin ACTUALLY defined limited atonement as were very good and I've actually never had it explained it to me that way before!
What I've always believed "limited atonement" means is what has made me uncomfortable and forced me to hesitate to identify as a five-point-Calvinist (which, side note, must Christians always compartmentalize everybody and everything? I mean, I think Calvin can be helpful but at some point we can just all be Christians together right? XD) although I would say that I pretty much completely agree with the other four points!
So, the way you defined the "limited atonement" point as John Calvin defined it (NOT as it is commonly defined) was actually something I've never heard before and would make me a lot more likely study it more and even probably end up calling myself a "Calvinist" (if again, we must identify as something :)
So thank you, that was very interesting and I've never heard that before! I am therefore wrong and you are right: do you think that maybe you could refer me to a source or two that I could use to study up on that myself?
LOL the other day I tried to contradict someone about something and I ended up accidentally misrepresenting them---I can totally relate and I have done it more times than I like to recall. XD
That's really interesting! I mean, I knew that extreme Calvinists hold to that view of limited atonement but I've personally never met one!
I know, the doctrine of limited atonement has made me uncomfortable because the title makes it sound like exactly what a lot of people think it is, which is why I felt compelled to research it. If the idea that Christ did not die for all was a true tennant of Calvin's teaching I would have a strong disagreement with him there.
I agree that it's unfortunate that people have to label themselves and each other. Hence me writing this post. XD While it can be helpful it often isn't healthy for sure.
Actually, I'm reading a really interesting book on Calvinism right now by a theologian who calls himself a "moderate Calvinist". I don't agree with all of his takes; he starts his ideas with a lot of presuppositions about what necessitates the way God's love is shown to us that I don't think is entirely accurate, but he does offer a helpful look into what extreme Calvinists and Armenians believe as opposed to moderate Calvinists and moderate Armenians. The book is called "Chosen, But Free".
A more dogmatic Calvinist found a lot of issues in that guy's reasoning and responded to the book in his own book called "The Potter's Freedom". The Potter's Freedom went on to become far more successful than Chosen, But Free and the author of Chosen, But Free then went on to revise his own book because he found that many of the critiques of his friend were valid.
From what I've read I'll probably agree more with the author of The Potter's Freedom. Chosen, But Free is still a very interesting and insightful read and offers some helpful insights into different perspectives, though!
I also love Jonathan Edwards (if you can't tell from how often I talk about him). He was an extreme Calvinist, so he took Calvin's ideas farther than he did. However, Edwards was point blank a genius (he's considered one of the United States most brilliant thinkers in history) and has amazing insight on the human heart. I'm reading his book "The Religious Affections" right now and couldn't recommend it highly enough.
Awesome and thanks! I might just look those books up!
I would that you would write an article on how the "heath and wealth" prosperity gospel has distorted the faith of many. That's extreme greed cloaked in Scripture taken totally out of context.
Thank you, Joan! That's a great idea. I'll keep that in mind! It's a post that would fit right into my genre and health and wealth lies are something I've been thinking about lately.
I hate that particular lie most of all. I've hated Kenneth Copeland, Paula Price, Benny Hinn, Joyce Myer, etc. but distanced myself from the emotion by remembering a line attributed to Martin Luther -- "The devil is God's devil" -- which means God will take care of those of that ilk. And even in condemning the most "greasy" kind of "Christian", I am reminded of my own sins. Unfair, don't you think? (that last was meant to be a joke).
Amen! That's something I have to remind myself of as well. It's easy to hate liars and those who have wronged us, but I agree that we have been called by God to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. It's hard to remember sometimes.
What an excellent read. Thank you.
Um. Wow. What a very excellent post :D You make very good points, and I appreciate that you quote others so often (something I aspire to). In what ways specifically have you seen your own (or others if you can share) tendency to swing towards a certain extreme and how has Christ helped guide you on the right path with that? I am curious what it looks like tangibly.
Thank you so much, annabeth!
Honestly, where I see this materializing most in my life is an overemphasis when it comes to the rules instead of walking in faith. Like the verse that talks about how we are "a clanging symbol if we have not love" I often have focused far too much on the rules and making sure I'm doing all the "good Christian things" rather than walking in love like my Savior and enjoying, loving, and challenging the people around me the way Christ would have me to. An extreme emphasis on the rules leads to fearful legalism instead of humble faith, and it's something I want to avoid at all costs.